This is freaking gold right here. Maybe I should have been an attorney? Just being able to use '$#@!ing $#@!' in a legal document like this while keeping a straight face is priceless. I feel like I could do even better:

Sterling is done. It seems he signed an agreement with his wife, Shelly to let her sell the team and she's doing so. Sterling's argument is the league can't force him to sell because he's a racist?!? Lol. He's hurting the league with his conduct. Once his private convo goes public it doesn't matter how it got there he's damaged the brand and his partners are forcing him to sell. He signed an agreement that states if 75% of the owners want him out then he's out. All this other stuff about the constitution is wrong. This isn't constitutional law it's contract law. I'm laughing to myself reading this document because he has no argument at all. He throwing stuff against the wall and is hoping it sticks.

Sterling is done. It seems he signed an agreement with his wife, Shelly to let her sell the team and she's doing so. Sterling's argument is the league can't force him to sell because he's a racist?!? Lol. He's hurting the league with his conduct. Once his private convo goes public it doesn't matter how it got there he's damaged the brand and his partners are forcing him to sell. He signed an agreement that states if 75% of the owners want him out then he's out. All this other stuff about the constitution is wrong. This isn't constitutional law it's contract law. I'm laughing to myself reading this document because he has no argument at all. He throwing stuff against the wall and is hoping it sticks.

No his lawyers argument is sound. He can't willingly damage a brand by someone illegally releasing an illegally recorded conversation. Furthermore, you'll notice the argument they make about the 'damaging the brand' provision not being a catch-all provision for anything the commissioner wants. It's sound legal reasoning not throwing random stuff against a wall.

No his lawyers argument is sound. He can't willingly damage a brand by someone illegally releasing an illegally recorded conversation. Furthermore, you'll notice the argument they make about the 'damaging the brand' provision not being a catch-all provision for anything the commissioner wants. It's sound legal reasoning not throwing random stuff against a wall.

He has an excellent argument and the law should be on his side.

No one purposely tries to damage their brand. It doesn't matter how the info got out there. Plus, his interview with Anderson Cooper sealed his fate when he basically agreed with everything the tape said! His partners vote next week or so on whether to kick him out. Once they do that it's over. Sterling is trying to keep the owners from voting against him by saying he'll fight it.

No one purposely tries to damage their brand. It doesn't matter how the info got out there. Plus, his interview with Anderson Cooper sealed his fate when he basically agreed with everything the tape said! His partners vote next week or so on whether to kick him out. Once they do that it's over. Sterling is trying to keep the owners from voting against him by saying he'll fight it.

It doesn't matter whether it was purposely as due to the recording being a violation of his constitutional rights the proceedings should be terminated on those grounds alone. It DOES matter how the recording got out there. There's this thing called the law you obviously are not familiar with.

An interview expressing opinions sealed his fate? Seriously? You disagree with his opinions and that means you can seize property? You aren't a lawyer. You never would be a lawyer with that kind of thinking.

What Sterling is doing is taking a stand against the NBA which caved into pressure with its actions against him and totally ignored the law.

First of all, the NBA is not a court of law; it's a private association which approves of each buyer. You can't sell to anyone without league approval. We are not talking about a house or car he owns. Sterling is part of a league. If you're negatively effecting the "brand" your partners won't want to do business with you and by violating NBA by-laws, "adversely affected the league" with his comments led to loss of revenue and damaged the brand; this gives the NBA the right to terminate his franchise license. After they vote to terminate, the league will force him to sell on the open market. (Forbes magazine estimates the team value is a billion dollars.) So his property isn't being taken from him illegally. It's in the contract he signed.

Secondly, If you want to argue violation of privacy you need to talk to his mistress. The NBA has nothing to do with that. Sterling needs to take personal responsibility for what he said and sell the team and move on. Fighting now is just more of a face saving gesture. Besides, he already authorized his wife to sell the team so it doesn't matter. She's selling it.

First of all, the NBA is not a court of law; it's a private association which approves of each buyer.

First of all don't preach to me about law as I have studied far more than you and secondly just because an organization is private does not mean it can violate CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS.

Try forming a private organization that hunts humans for sport and let me know how that goes for you.

Originally Posted by hnic357

If you're negatively effecting the "brand" your partners won't want to do business with you and by violating NBA by-laws,

Once again, you did not read the fine print. The provision the NBA is using is regarding CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. All of which have been met by Sterling as his lawyers correctly state.

Originally Posted by hnic357

this gives the NBA the right to terminate his franchise license.

No it does not which is exactly what the lawyers argue because it is not a catch all provision anyone can interpret any which way they want to. There is specific wording as to what this entails. It does not say 'boo hoo if someone's feelings get hurt we do what we want' unless I'm missing that?

Originally Posted by hnic357

After they vote to terminate, the league will force him to sell on the open market. (Forbes magazine estimates the team value is a billion dollars.) So his property isn't being taken from him illegally. It's in the contract he signed.

They can vote but that doesn't mean Sterling can not fight in court whether they even have the grounds to proceed with termination based on an illegal recording. As the recording is illegal, this supersedes its use as it is not admissible as evidence.

Originally Posted by hnic357

Secondly, If you want to argue violation of privacy you need to talk to his mistress. The NBA has nothing to do with that. Sterling needs to take personal responsibility for what he said and sell the team and move on. Fighting now is just more of a face saving gesture. Besides, he already authorized his wife to sell the team so it doesn't matter. She's selling it.

He did take personal responsibility but there is nothing in law that says you can take someone's property because they do not think the way you want them to.

First of all don't preach to me about law as I have studied far more than you and secondly just because an organization is private does not mean it can violate CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS.

Try forming a private organization that hunts humans for sport and let me know how that goes for you.

The NBA didn't violate his rights at all. His views are public knowledge and he's a liability to their ability to maximize profits. That's why they want him out. You can't argue violation of privacy when the info is known to the public. Just because you have a private conversation with someone at the time doesn't mean it will always stay that way. Plenty of people have gotten in trouble by saying something when they thought they were in private and were overheard. And there is even some doubt that he didn't know he was being recorded. His mistress said they would record conversations all the time.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Originally Posted by hnic357
If you're negatively effecting the "brand" your partners won't want to do business with you and by violating NBA by-laws,
Once again, you did not read the fine print. The provision the NBA is using is regarding CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. All of which have been met by Sterling as his lawyers correctly state.

That's what Sterling's lawyer says. Good luck trying to make that argument stick. He doesn't site any cases where privacy rights was used to reverse a private association's decision.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Originally Posted by hnic357
this gives the NBA the right to terminate his franchise license.
No it does not which is exactly what the lawyers argue because it is not a catch all provision anyone can interpret any which way they want to. There is specific wording as to what this entails. It does not say 'boo hoo if someone's feelings get hurt we do what we want' unless I'm missing that?

Look again. The provision doesn't say it has to be about paying contracts. That's your interpretation.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Originally Posted by hnic357
After they vote to terminate, the league will force him to sell on the open market. (Forbes magazine estimates the team value is a billion dollars.) So his property isn't being taken from him illegally. It's in the contract he signed.
They can vote but that doesn't mean Sterling can not fight in court whether they even have the grounds to proceed with termination based on an illegal recording. As the recording is illegal, this supersedes its use as it is not admissible as evidence.

According to the NBA constitution the body is governed by NY state law which does allow 1-way taped conversations. Even though the tape was made in Cali the NBA could claim it doesn't matter because of this. It's irrelevant anyway because we're not even sure he didn't approve of being recorded.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Originally Posted by hnic357
Secondly, If you want to argue violation of privacy you need to talk to his mistress. The NBA has nothing to do with that. Sterling needs to take personal responsibility for what he said and sell the team and move on. Fighting now is just more of a face saving gesture. Besides, he already authorized his wife to sell the team so it doesn't matter. She's selling it.
He did take personal responsibility but there is nothing in law that says you can take someone's property because they do not think the way you want them to.

His lawyers are spot on.

His thoughts are not the issue. He's costing them money and creating bad publicity for the league. Even the privacy issues is dead now since he went on Anderson Cooper's show and ripped into Magic and basically admitted he meant all those things he said on the tape.

His views are public knowledge and he's a liability to their ability to maximize profits.

If I was Sterling's attorneys I would argue the fact he got a $1.8 billion offer from Balmer that he just increased the value of every owner's team and just made people money on that alone. So he's a liability by just increasing everyone's value by millions?

Secondly, the provision is not about someone's opinions. Once again I have to repeat it is about contractual obligations not a catch all provision regarding if you like his opinions. What you think about what he said is legally irrelevant as he has not violated a single contractual obligation with any NBA personnel.

Originally Posted by hnic357

ou can't argue violation of privacy when the info is known to the public.

Yes you can as his lawyers just did, see above. Do you or I know more than they do? So you're saying his lawyers just pulled California law out of their rear ends when they directly cite the penal code? Huh?

Originally Posted by hnic357

Just because you have a private conversation with someone at the time doesn't mean it will always stay that way.

Um there's thing called expectation to privacy which is why you can be recorded when you are out in public as you do not have an expectation to privacy in public. This is something the supreme court already ruled on. I just don't think you know the law.

Originally Posted by hnic357

Plenty of people have gotten in trouble by saying something when they thought they were in private and were overheard.

Please cite precedents where someone was legally forced to cede property for expressing an opinion.

Originally Posted by hnic357

His mistress said they would record conversations all the time.

For what possible purpose? To sell to TMZ?

Originally Posted by hnic357

That's what Sterling's lawyer says. Good luck trying to make that argument stick. He doesn't site any cases where privacy rights was used to reverse a private association's decision.

You're not making any sense here. He has not violated any contractual obligations and California law regarding private conversations supercedes what you may think of what he said anyway.

Originally Posted by hnic357

Look again. The provision doesn't say it has to be about paying contracts. That's your interpretation.

Right here in plain English, 'Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association.' What contractual obligation has he refused to fulfill? I don't see anything anywhere that says an owner is contractually obligated to have politically correct private conversations. Maybe because no private organization can violate the First Amendment?

Originally Posted by hnic357

According to the NBA constitution the body is governed by NY state law which does allow 1-way taped conversations.

See if you studied law you would know that the state law where the conversation takes place is what matters and other states have to recognize that state's laws in such instances.

Originally Posted by hnic357

His thoughts are not the issue. He's costing them money and creating bad publicity for the league.

$1.8 billion dollar offer on the table. He just made everyone money before he even sold the franchise.

His lawyers just did, see above. Do you or I know more than they do? So you're saying his lawyers just pulled California law out of their rear ends when they directly cite the penal code? Huh?

Um there's thing called expectation to privacy which is why you can be recorded when you are out in public as you do not have an expectation to privacy in public. This is something the supreme court already ruled on. I just don't think you know the law.

Please cite precedents where someone was legally forced to cede property for expressing an opinion.

For what possible purpose? To sell to TMZ?

You're not making any sense here. He has not violated any contractual obligations and California law regarding private conversations supercedes what you may think of what he said anyway.

Right here in plain English, 'Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association.' What contractual obligation has he refused to fulfill? I don't see anything anywhere that says an owner is contractually obligated to have politically correct private conversations. Maybe because no private organization can violate the First Amendment?

See if you studied law you would know that the state law where the conversation takes place is what matters and other states have to recognize that state's laws in such instances.

$1.8 billion dollar offer on the table. He just made everyone money before he even sold the franchise.

I rest my case.

All these things you've sited are from Sterling's attorney. He's word isn't the law. The fact is the team is being sold and then Sterling can pretend he still has a team while suing the league for breach of contract. He'll lose because he already agreed to the league rules and courts tend not to over throw binding arbitration agreements.

All these things you've sited are from Sterling's attorney. He's word isn't the law.

No kidding but clearly he has a case. His lawyers aren't just pulling penal codes from thin air. They actually are citing LAWS. They aren't just saying 'oh we don't like what Adam Silver said' as their entire case.

Originally Posted by hnic357

He'll lose because he already agreed to the league rules and courts tend not to over throw binding arbitration agreements

As Sterling's attorneys argue he hasn't violated any league rules or laws. I think his lawyers make a better case than you do.

No kidding but clearly he has a case. His lawyers aren't just pulling penal codes from thin air. They actually are citing LAWS. They aren't just saying 'oh we don't like what Adam Silver said' as their entire case.

no $#@! they are citing laws. Lawyers make arguments all the time that are irrelevant or thrown out of court. Sterling's lawyer is doing what he's paid to do. Most lawyers familiar with contract law says he has no case.

Originally Posted by Sticky

As Sterling's attorneys argue he hasn't violated any league rules or laws. I think his lawyers make a better case than you do.

Yeah, Sterling's lawyer is going to say that. That's why I go back to the by-laws which gives the league wide authority to kick people out by terminating their franchise rights.

no $#@! they are citing laws. Lawyers make arguments all the time that are irrelevant or thrown out of court. Sterling's lawyer is doing what he's paid to do. Most lawyers familiar with contract law says he has no case.

Their arguments are completely relevant and you have offered absolutely no analysis of them. You're point is an Anderson Cooper interview as if it that has any relevancy to property or privacy rights that are guaranteed.

Originally Posted by hnic357

Yeah, Sterling's lawyer is going to say that. That's why I go back to the by-laws which gives the league wide authority to kick people out by terminating their franchise rights.

You're having trouble reading the by-laws as there is no by-law that states we can take your team for whatever reason we invent. Sterling is actually standing on strong legal ground. You're standing on nothing.

Their arguments are completely relevant and you have offered absolutely no analysis of them. You're point is an Anderson Cooper interview as if it that has any relevancy to property or privacy rights that are guaranteed.

How are they relevant? Their are several agreements owners sign including the joint venture agreement where owners assent to league authority. Sterling's privacy argument is not based on law, it's based on trying to sway the owners.

Originally Posted by Sticky

You're having trouble reading the by-laws as there is no by-law that states we can take your team for whatever reason we invent. Sterling is actually standing on strong legal ground. You're standing on nothing.

Let's put it this way, if Sterling thinks he has a good case he can get a judge to halt the sale with an injunction against the NBA. It won't happen because what you're claiming is not at issue. Sterling "case" is based on trying to sway the owners from voting him out. He's trying to scare the other owners into thinking what is happening to Sterling can happen to me.

How are they relevant? Their are several agreements owners sign including the joint venture agreement where owners assent to league authority. Sterling's privacy argument is not based on law, it's based on trying to sway the owners.

You are not even coherent here with major usage errors. The owners do not cede authority to the league they agree they will maintain their contractual obligations. What contracts has Sterling violated? He has paid all of his players and employees. The provision has absolutely nothing to do with private conversations or opinions. Sterling's lawyers are completely correct and the law is on their side.

Originally Posted by hnic357

Let's put it this way, if Sterling thinks he has a good case he can get a judge to halt the sale with an injunction against the NBA. It won't happen because what you're claiming is not at issue. Sterling "case" is based on trying to sway the owners from voting him out. He's trying to scare the other owners into thinking what is happening to Sterling can happen to me.

He does have a good case. He could tie this up in court for years. Frankly, if it was me and a vote took place ousting me I'd argue collusion going after the owners as well as the league. Let's see how many of them want to risk their assets then, eh? But I'm young and wouldn't mind the fight. Sterling is in his 80's and may just be content to take his $2 billion.

Regardless, as the $2 billion dollar offer shows Sterling can now claim he just elevated the value of every NBA franchise. It is almost four times the value of the last sale at $550 million.

What happens to Sterling should scare the other owners because law works on precedent. If you start taking property away for private comments recorded illegally it is a hell of a slippery slope as Mark Cuban understood and stated. What Sterling said is basically irrelevant.

You are not even coherent here with major usage errors. The owners do not cede authority to the league they agree they will maintain their contractual obligations. What contracts has Sterling violated? He has paid all of his players and employees. The provision has absolutely nothing to do with private conversations or opinions. Sterling's lawyers are completely correct and the law is on their side.

"failure to fulfill contract obligations" when he embarrassed the NBA which the commissioner called, "conduct detrimental to the league." That clear enough? The owners sign several agreements not just the NBA by-laws. Franchise agreements also contain these conduct clauses.

Originally Posted by Sticky

He does have a good case. He could tie this up in court for years. Frankly, if it was me and a vote took place ousting me I'd argue collusion going after the owners as well as the league. Let's see how many of them want to risk their assets then, eh? But I'm young and wouldn't mind the fight. Sterling is in his 80's and may just be content to take his $2 billion.

He can't tie up the sale unless he gets an injunction and that is highly unlikely. He might try to embarrass the other owners with putting some dirty laundry out there but they could do the same to him.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Regardless, as the $2 billion dollar offer shows Sterling can now claim he just elevated the value of every NBA franchise. It is almost four times the value of the last sale at $550 million.

How can he claim it? He owns the franchise in LA, the 2nd biggest market in the country. Milwaukee has 600k people in it. 900k in all of Milwaukee county. The city of Los Angeles by itself is over 3 million. Of course the Clippers are worth more. They're in LA and he happens to own them; Sterling didn't do a damn thing to make them worth 2 billion.

Originally Posted by Sticky

What happens to Sterling should scare the other owners because law works on precedent. If you start taking property away for private comments recorded illegally it is a hell of a slippery slope as Mark Cuban understood and stated. What Sterling said is basically irrelevant.

We don't know if the call was illegal since his mistress said Sterling would tape his own conversations to remember things he said. Who you gonna believe? Neither one of them are reputable sources or honorable people.